In this post, I would like to summarise the reasons found in my previous post(s), to add a fresh argument, and to lay the groundwork for a controversial proposal about what actually happened in what were originally Paul's Galatian churches. First, then, a summary of the case that Paul lost the churches of Galatia:

(1) The collection: In Paul's instructions concerning the collection for the saints in Jerusalem, Galatia is initially included (1 Cor. 16.1-4) but has dropped out in subsequent epistles, 2 Corinthians 9.1-4 and Romans 15.24-28. Paul is still on good terms with the Galatians in 1 Corinthians, and has recently given them directions concerning the collection, but by 2 Corinthians and Romans, they are no longer mentioned as participants in the collection. The rupture with the Galatian churches, to which the epistle to the Galatians bears witness, has occurred in between the writing of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. Paul has lost those churches, and Galatians is his last desperate attempt to win back people he sees as apostate. See further: Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians?, and cf. Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians II and Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians III.

(2) Absence of Travel Plans: There is a striking absence of travel plans in Galatians. Paul always makes travel plans in his epistles, always talks about his next visit; it's a repeated theme. See 1 Thess. 2.17--3.1; 1 Cor. 16.5-10; 2 Cor. 12.14--13.2; Romans 1.9-15 and 15.22-25; Philemon 22; Phil. 1.21-27. Paul is writing to the Galatians already conscious that he has made his last visit to them. See further: Paul's lack of travel plans in Galatians.

(3) The Scarcity of Galatia in Acts: Galatia and the Galatian crisis has been written out of Paul's story in Acts. All that survives of Galatia in Acts are remnants of Paul's itinerary, with no additional detail:

16.6, "They went through the Phrygian and Galatian region . . ."

18.23, "Paul left and went through the region of Galatia and Phrygia . . . "

There is no story of the conversion of the Galatians, and still less of the crisis there. This is significant given the fact that Acts does tell the story of the founding of the major centres of Paul's activity as reflected in his other epistles, Philippi in Acts 16, Thessalonica in Acts 17, Corinth in Acts 18 (and of course, Rome is the theme of the end of Acts).

On this latter point, it might, of course, be objected that Acts 13-14 tell the story of Paul's founding mission in Galatia, and that this is the region Paul is writing to in Galatians, the so-called "South Galatian hypothesis". But whatever one thinks of this hypothesis (and I am not persuaded), it is important to remind ourselves of something simple, that Luke himself does not call that region Galatia. When Luke is talking about places like Lystra, Derbe and Iconium, he calls them "cities of Lycaonia" (Acts 14.6; cf. Acts 14.11). The term "Galatia", which Luke knows and uses (Acts 16.6, 18.23) does not refer to this region. In other words, Luke knows of a mission there which he does not narrate. Alongside the other evidence, it seems likely that Luke knew that Paul had been ultimately unsuccessful there.

In my next post in this series, I would like to discuss the situation addressed by Paul in Galatians, and I will suggest that contrary to the usual reconstructions, the process of circumcision was already underway before Paul wrote to them his letter of rebuke.

21 comments:

Mark, there is some evidence that the churches of south Galatia were lost. Bauckham has recently suggested that Christians were mentioned by name in the gospels because their names were familiar to the readers. I think this applies to Acts, at least. Luke would honour prominent Christians by mentioning them by name, and it is significant that he mentions all those who are prominent in Paul's letters. The named Christians in Macedonia are Lydia, Jason, Aristarchus, Gaius, Secundus, and Sopater. In Achaia we have Dionysius, Damaris, Crispus, and Titius Justus. From Asia there is Tychicus, Trophimus and Eutychus. Also we have Prisca and Aquila. It is therefore striking that no south Galatians are named, the the possible single exception of Gaius (Acts 20:4), if he was from Derbe and if Derbe was in south Galatia. The relative absence of names of south Galatian believers in Acts may indicate that the Christian communities there fell out of communion with the other Pauline churches.

Now, the fate of the Galatian churches was hanging in the balance when Paul wrote his letter (we know this for many reasons - not just the lack of travel plans). It is therefore quite possible that Paul was writing to the south Galatian churches and that they became lost to Paul. The south Galatia theory would explain the loss, which in turn would explain the lack of names of south Galatian Christians in Acts.

So I am now inclined to agree that Paul lost the Galatians. This would suggest that the letter was written after the Galatian collection. It is hard to imagine Paul asking he Galatians to make a collection after the writing of the letter, if the letter was unsuccessful. The sequence should be: Gal 2:1-10 visit, collection from Galatia, Galatian crisis and the composition of the letter, loss of the Galatian churches, composition of Acts. This fits my view that the collection from Galatia happened before the start of the second missionary journey, immediately after Paul was asked to 'remember the poor' (Gal 2:10).

Why do people assume that the Galatian collection was scheduled to happen at the same time as the Achaian collection? It seems more reasonable to me to suppose that different regions took their turns to contribute for Jerusalem at different times. Galatia contributed in ~49 when Judea was suffering from the famine and the Sabbatical year, and Achaia and Macedonia contributed in ~56.

Mark, what would you make of the rest of Acts 18:23: Paul "departed and went from place to place through the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples." It would seem that if this is the same "Galatia" as Paul means in Galatians 1:2, and Paul lost those churches in that Galatia, then Luke seems to have been unaware of it: there are disciples in that region that remain to be strengthened. Thus, it seems difficult to argue that "Luke knew that Paul had been ultimately unsuccessful there."

Richard: many thanks for those interesting comments about the names in Acts 20; I'd wondered myself about those from time to time and what interesting clues they might contain. You may well be right that Paul also lost the communities in "south Galatia" too, though I am not sure that that is the right name for the group. After all, Paul does not apparently revisit these communities, in Acts, after Luke spends so much time talking about them in Acts 14. For the present, my point is that I don't think that Luke calls the communities of Acts 14 "Galatian". If places like Lystra and Derbe have any generic geographical name, that name is "Lycaonian" and not Galatian. In other words, Luke does not give us any reason to think of the people in Acts 14 as "Galatians".

I am interested by your thoughts on a Galatian collection, as also per your earlier comments. However, does not Paul think of the Galatians alongside the Achaians and the Macedonians in 1 Cor. 16.1-4? It seems to me that this is the same collection.

Michael: thanks for your useful point, interesting and astute as ever! I would make several points in reply: (1) My point of drawing attention to Acts 16.6 and 18.23 is that it shows that Luke does talk about a place called Galatia that is adjacent to Phrygia, something that tells strongly against the identification of the Acts 14 places as "Galatian"; Luke thinks of these as Lycaonian. (2) But you are right that 18.23 does talk about strengthening the disciples. I don't think that this tells against the notion that Paul had lost Galatia -- he does not tell us how many disciples were strengthened there, and it is interesting that we get the pairing with Phrygia too, otherwise unknown. (3) "Strengthening the disciples" is something of a standard Lucan motif and does not give us a great deal of content about the founding of or debates with the communities in question. (4) Most importantly, I am not denying that Paul ever had successful visits to the Galatians. The founding of the communities there implies at least one, and there may have been more. The point is that *ultimately* the Galatian churches were lost to Paul. So the issue with Acts 16.6 and 18.23 is where they fit into the chronology of Paul's life. 18.23 looks very much like a duplicate of 16.6, and the "true" location of this visit is difficult to ascertain. But 18.22 does look very much like the "true" location of the Jerusalem council, which Luke has told much earlier in his narrative, in Acts 15, as Knox and Luedemann argue. I'd have thought that the visit(s) Luke mentions in Acts 16.6 and 18.23 in fact took place before Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatians.

Mark, I've always found it intriguing that the most prominent Paulinist of the second century (Marcion) came from the area of North Galatia. Granted, that's nearly a century removed from Paul's crisis with Galatia, but I do find it fascinating that evidently Marcion's father was the bishop of Sinope and that Marcion was such an admirer of Paul and that Marcion would put the Galatian letter at the head of his Pauline corpus. Of course, it's not exactly clear when Marcion developed such an (over)appreciation for Paul, whether early on in Sinope or after his trip to Rome in the 140s. I have wondered if this might indicate that Paul at least had some limited long-term success with the Galatians, even though this evidence is sketchy at best.

Mark, thanks for your further comment. We agree that Galatians was written after Paul asked the Galatians to make a collection. You place the (scheduled) delivery of this collection after the writing of the letter. A difficulty here is that Paul says nothing in Galatians to encourage his readers to give, or to make final arrangements for the collection, and nor does he express regret that they had withdrawn from the enterprise. In 2 Corinthians the collection had stalled and Paul had much to say about it. In Galatians, by contrast, Paul has nothing to say on the subject. In Gal 2:10 Paul says that he eagerly responded to the needs of the poor, so it is all the more surprising that he shows no interest in the collection from Galatia in the rest of the letter. All this indicates that the collection from Galatia was already history when Paul wrote his letter, I think.

Mark, I'm not so sure that your argument from silence is as significant as you think (i.e. the lack of mention of Galatians in 2 Cor and Romans). It seems to me that there is a particular Macedonia/Achaia rivalry that Paul has been utilising in promoting the collection in those areas (using Achaian willingness to promote the collection in Macedonia, 2 Cor 9.2 etc.; and using Macedonian willingness to provoke the Achaians, 2 Cor 8.1-5). In that context any mention of Galatians lacks rhetorical purchase by comparison (note that he never mentions whether or not Asian churches are joining in either).

Although Luke appears at first glance to distinguish Galatia from the cities of the first missionary journey, questions arise- A south galatian view would be better able to explain (1) why Antioch in Pisidia and Iconium are not mentioned at the start of the second journey, and (2) why none of Derbe, Lystra, AinP and Iconium are mentioned at the start of the third. They could be included by luke in what he means by Galatia and:or Phrygia. otherwise Paul makes a large jump straight from Antioch to NGalatia & Phrygia at the start of the third journey. Plus the fact that the apostolic letter was intended for the cities already evangelised. For such reasons I find the solution incredibly finely balanced.

I'm a Christian Universalist; Nothing matters to me as much as finding facts.

Dogmatics (lutharan), Nor Calvinistic traditions, Nor Church Traditions has bothered me if i find facts opposing what is taught as valid intrepretation.

these are my questions:

Big Question: Did the Galatians come back from believing an ‘other’ Gospel to the true Gospel? Does Paul again refer to them in subsequent epistles in positive terms?

Historical Attestation: Capital Books of Paul (Tubingen School). Undisputed like Romans and 1 AND 2 Corinthians (except for a some Dutch tradition)

Tangential Background: Northern Galatians Theory: Most famous Proponents: Bishop Lightfoot. Tubingen School with Christian Baur et al. and Many other Old commentators.

Southern Galatians theory: Most of the modern scholars from Ramsey circa 1880.But Ramsey himself says ‘(In regards to lystra and derbe) How did the cosmopolitan Paul himself drift into this backwater (paraphrase)’. “On the other hand ancyra in Northern Galatia one of the greatest and most splendid cities in Northern Galatia”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06336a.htm(2) Cornel and the majority of the upholders of the South-Galatian theory suppose, with much greater probability, that it was written about A.D. 53, 54. (3) Those who defend the North-Galatians theory place it as late as A.D. 57 or 58.

Assuming with high Probability (NIV commentary series 1976: Montgomery Boice)…Galatians written after Jerusalem Council

Big Question 2: Why does Paul not refer to the edicts of the council when dealing with the Corinthian Church?

Observation1: If Galatians have been written prior to the Corinthians, then how and why could Paul ask in 1 Corinthians 16 that the Galatians should contribute monetarily, given that they are falling away from faith : 1 Now in regard to the collection for the holy ones, you also should do as I ordered the churches of Galatia. ETC…

Big question 2: Did the Corinthian Church repent of their many evils (HERE is ‘many’) instead of the ‘some’ as in 1 Corinthians 6:11.Observation 2: Paul could have easily evoked the Jerusalem council’s edicts and exhorted the Corinthians to not commit the evil vices since even the elders in Jerusalem say so.

2 Corinthians 12: 19Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you? We have been speaking in the sight of God as those in Christ; and everything we do, dear friends, is for your strengthening. 20For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder. 21I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.

My personal encouragement: Paul visits the Corinthians one last time and the Lord gives him the epistle to the Romans instead of some pastoral epistle. He writes nothing about the Problems of the Corinthians(He is writing the book from the City of Corinth)and in Chapter 16:23 : Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you.

So big question 1: Does Paul say something like this in his later epistles about the Galatians Church, at least some of the church, have deserted Paul’s Gospel.

(Both Lightfoot, and one other Commentator says there is not info either on the work of Paul (the new Scofield bible intro), nor anything in history, nor anything in the Epistles.

In the Intro to the New Testament By Drs. Moo & CarsonOn Page 458 there is footnote refering to Bishop Lightfoot, quoting the footnote(the entire footnote)J.B Lightfoot, who, like other older commentators, favored the North Galatian theory, nevertheless comments: "It is strange that while we have more or less acquaintance with all the other important Churches of St Paul's founding, with Corinth and Ephesus, with Philippi and Thessalonica, not a single name of a person or place, scarcely a single incident of any kind, connected with the Apostle's preaching in Galatiam should be preserved in either the History or the epistle" (Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians London: Mcmillan, 1920. 21)

Please bear with me as i reiterate my question, with a little background.

In the Intro to the New Testament By Drs. Moo & CarsonOn Page 458 there is footnote referring to Bishop Lightfoot, quoting the footnote(the entire footnote)J.B Lightfoot, who, like other older commentators, favored the North Galatians’ theory, nevertheless comments: "It is strange that while we have more or less acquaintance with all the other important Churches of St Paul's founding, with Corinth and Ephesus, with Philippi and Thessalonica, not a single name of a person or place, scarcely a single incident of any kind, connected with the Apostle's preaching in Galatia should be preserved in either the History or the epistle" (Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians London: McMillan, 1920. 21)

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians by Ernest De Witt Burton; Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920, on Page 22 and 23, Mr. Burton, seems to me, conclusively proves at least one thing: The letter to the Galatians can only be addressed to only one Group, either the North or the South, but NOT both (assuming for the sake of argument, that there were two groups of churches)

James Montgomery Boice has an interesting quote in his commentary (NIV New testaments commentaries, I think, sorry for not being precise). Quote : “It is said, by some that St. Paul wrote the letter to the Northern Celts, Why is it that He breaks the regular habit of thanking the first fruit churches of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe when writing to the Galatians"

It is interesting to note that in F. F Bruce in his New international Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC) 1982, reprint 2002 on Page 10 he says “ ‘How did the cosmopolitan Paul drift like a piece of timber borne by current into the quiet backwater (of Lystra and Derbe).’ On the other hand Ancyra in Northern Galatia, the provincial seat of administration, was, on Ramsay’s own showing, ‘On of the greatest and most splendid cities of Asia Minor’ ”

My observation: It seems its inconclusive whether the Northern or Southern Theory is a valid option with a high degree of probability. Both Bishop Lightfoot and Ramsay are well respected.

MY QUESTION: Given this: do we have in history or in Paul’s other epistles (OR IN THE ENTIRE CANON OF NT or the Writings of the Church Fathers), He (Apo Paul), or History ever again mentioning the Galatians’ church, or People, or Places? In other words Is J.B Lightfoot’s statement true, even if Southern Galatians’ Theory is the only valid option with high degree of Probability?

(As previous mentioned before: Paul named Christians in Macedonia are Lydia, Jason, Aristarchus, Gaius, Secundus, and Sopater. In Achaia we have Dionysius, Damaris, Crispus, and Titius Justus. From Asia there is Tychicus, Trophimus and Eutychus. Also we have Prisca and Aquila. It is therefore striking that no south Galatians are named, the possible single exception of Gaius (Acts 20:4) )

18In his Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach, SNTSMS 56 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1986) 56, Francis Watson gives his version of Paul as loser: “It seems that James’ attempt to impose the law on the Antiochene Gentile Christians was successful. If Paul had won the argument, he would surely have said so. . . . This event therefore represented a disaster for Paul: his work in Antioch, based on the premise of the law-free gospel for the Gentiles, had been destroyed at a stroke. . . . The Antiochenes had submitted to the authority of the leaders in Jerusalem, and this in effect constituted a vote of no confidence in Paul’s leadership. He left Antioch because he had to.” Thus, Francis Watson, and others. But it is not a question of who won the argument. Rather, the action of James still left unsettled the resolution of the original dilemma, i.e. how the early church was to accommodate the legitimate claims of Jewish identity and the claims of the gentile mission, and at the same time how it was to enjoy the unity of Christian sisters and brothers, whether Jew or gentile. The apostolic leadership had found no easy solution. In the light of this situation, one finds it curious that scholars should declare Paul the loser when he remained true to his principles, and should ignore the “cave-in” of Cephas and Barnabas when they had not.

Hello ProfGood AfternoonJust finished lunch with some church friends.Today at church i got this idea.

If the southern Galatian theory is true, and Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe were is southern galatia. then timothy, was first brought into notice at the time of Paul's second visit to Lystra .Why not mention the example of his son of faith as a model to southern galatians. The reason probably is that he circumsied him in Acts 16:2,3.Isn't that a great point against the southern Galatians theory??Since Timothy himself got circumcised to avoid persecution. Then writing Galatians to counter circumcision??? that would be illogical.Next, even if Paul has a change in mind, and he felt bad about cicumcising Timothy. will he not have said something about timothy to the Galatian church???. If lystra was in southern Galatia and Paul wrote Galatians to these people in lystra, derbe etc...Now loook at 1 Tim and 2 Tim, even if they are not written by Paul, there is no mentio of the Galatians in the book. The author mentions lystra etc. but not Galatians.So 1 Tim and 2 Tim has no Galatians in there (say, Paul would have mentioned Galatia if Timothy was from Galatia).then in Galatians, paul does not mention the Son of the Soil, timothy.the only conclusion seems to me is that Timothy was not from Galatia. Since the brothers of Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him - Acts 16:2. and he would have been held as a model of faith and faithfulness to the Galatian Chruch, IF PAUL WROTE TO DERBE, LYSTRA AND CALLED THEM GALATIA.Now if He wrote 1 tim and 2 tim, there is no mention of Galatia at all. Just some troubles in Lystra and iconnium 2 Tim 3:11, which is expected since Timothy was from there (lystra).

So it leaves us with this1) Timothy was not from Galatia. Even if he was, Paul did not send him to Galatia, or talk about him in the letter to the galatians. the reason being, he lost all hope of they coming back to faith in the gospel.2) if Paul lost all hope, then he would not have written to the Galatians church such a passionate letter. But he wrote, which means atleast he had some hope.3) In that case, and we know paul's character, he would have pulled all tricks of the trade, and the best trick would be to send Timothy to themv (son of the soil, son of faith...). Even if they knew Timothy was circumsised, he would have used the jargon of corithians..'God will humble me bfore you ...etc', but still Timothy is a good trump card anyways.4) He does not send Timothy to them, which means they did not know Timothy.5) that means Timothy was not from Galatia, that means lystra etc. is not Galatia.6) Which means Galatia is further North where they did not know or did not care about Timothy.

I said previously even if Paul has a change in mind, and he felt bad about cicumcising Timothy. will he not have said something about timothy to the Galatian church???. the reason, is that they would seek some explanation as to why Timothy was circumsised and then Paul is turning around and asking them not to get circumsised. in Galatia 2:3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. But i do not know why is he doing it so much away from Jerusalem to timothyy????

In Point 3 i mentioned3) In that case, and we know paul's character, he would have pulled all tricks of the trade, and the best trick would be to send Timothy to themv (son of the soil, son of faith...). Even if they knew Timothy was circumsised, he would have used the jargon of corithians..'God will humble me bfore you ...etc', but still Timothy is a good trump card anyways.

If timothy was well spoken of they he would have been a natural person for them to talk to if Paul wants to adress Galatians.

But Paul does not mention him in his book of Galatians..

the Only viable explanation with a high degree of probability is that Galatian Church did not not know Him. which means that Lystra is not part of Galatian church, which means that It was up north asia minor

Hello Profits 8:15 pm ..still been thinking about this.its been 1 week since i am pursuing to understand this topicLast sunday morning at 8 am and now its been 1 week 12 hoursi pray that the Good Lord give me quick closure to this.Acts 16:6 (after timothy enters into picture) is the first time Phrygia and Galatia is mentioned.the next time it seems Paul is alone in Acts 18:23Now, if we think about it: Scenario 1: tim was with paul in 16:6. Then his case is destroyed because he mentions in Galatians that titus was not compelled to be circumcised. The Galatians could turn arond and say..but you circumsised Timothy. He still have to defend or apolagize to the galatiansScenario 2:Tim was not with Paul in Acts 16:6. Thats the reason he does not mention Him to the Galatians.But then why does he mention Titus, since acts does not mention he at all.Acts mentions Timothy and Barnabas clearly and and then in Galatians only Barnabas is mentioned, but nothing is mentioned in Acts in the regios of Galatia that barnabas was there..since Paul and Barnabas already broke up......

Is there not more than one kind of circumcision? It is my understanding that if one is already circumcised and then wants to follow Torah that the Rabbis require a pricking to draw blood. Could this not be what is being spoken of here? Also there is more than one kind of law spoken of...the Law of Torah and the dogmatic laws of the Pharisees. Jesus said 'my yoke is easy and my burden is light' and he and Paul both said that the law is not abolished or done away. Paul submitted to the rulings of James who clearly taught obedience to Torah as evidence of faith. All other apostles did as well. John repeatedly says if you love me you will obey my commands. So I think we have an interpretation problem here and Paul is the only one that seems confusing. Peter even says that Paul is hard to understand by those who are untaught and twist his words. 2000 years and many translations and interpretations have confused us. Pagan traditions crept into the church and now people don't know what is really taught by scripture, but only what their preachers and teachers have taught them. If they are taught that a Greek word means white even though it clearly says black, they would rather believe the teacher than research for themselves. Galatians is hard to understand, but I don't believe that Paul would contradict the entirety of scripture. He is using rabbinic arguments and Western thinkers do not understand how rabbis midrash. There is a lot more here than any of us realizes. But if you think the Messiah wants us to forget the Torah he is no Messiah. Torah is clear about what a false prophet is...one who teaches one to forget Torah! Jesus upheld Torah and I believe that Paul did too. Paul is teaching something that is important to remember. Balance of Torah and Grace is imperative. Never lean too far to either side.